Anyone have any experience with a Burris Fullfield II 2-7x35 scope? Considering one with a #4 reticle for a 9.3x62mm build.

I bought a Fullfield II 2-7X35 with the E1 reticle for my .358Win BLR. 6X calibrates that BDC reticle to that cartridge ballistic drop (200 gr TSX) very well. I evaluated it with others at SHOT and found it has good veiling glare performance, which is well above average for that price point. Good sight picture, optical quality and value.

Just talked with a guy who contacted Burris about possible recoil damage if using that scope on his Howa in .375 Ruger. They assured him it could handle the recoil. Of course this is the manufacturers opinion but those FFII's are tough scopes.

I bought the exact scope/reticle from either Graf's or Natchez' for $99 a couple of months ago. For the price I thought I would give it a go. Just haven't been home long enough to get it mounted and used. Just fiddling with it and trying it in the evening I was pretty impressed. Fairly light and compact too. Sorry I can't help with usage data.

For several years I used a Burris on my7mm-.300 Wea. When I rebarreled it to the .375-.416 Rem within ten shots firing Sierra 300 grain bullets at 2,800 feet per second it sounded like a baby rattle.

The first one I bought was never clear enough for me but the person I sold it to thought it was just great and I've shied away from them for a number of years. Last year they had such a good price on the camo ones from Natchez that I bought one to donate as a prise at a target shoot, It was very nice and I'm considerring getting another for myself.

I had one on a 338/06AI for a bit. It worked well, but never warmed up to the looks and had to dremmel down a Talley LW base to accommodate the larger power ring.

Felt like it wouldda looked better on a SA timber rifle.

I got a new one for my Ruger 308International and it is really nice and especially appropriate due to size and the #4 heavy reticle. I use if mostly for woods hunting and low light and it seems to be very good all around. It looks good on the short barreled Ruger and the 35mm obj. gives it plenty of light.
FOR THE PRICE----hard to beat!

Ive got six FFIIs in 3x9 and obviously like them alot, so I had no hesitation buying a 2x7 FFII...a mistake...for whatever reason, at least to me, it seems like the eye relief sucks...

One man's opinion....fwiw

Good to know. Can't bring myself to put a 3x9 on it. Might just go with the Leupold 2x7 or the 1.5x5

I have tried a lot of scopes over the last 40 odd years but the scope i have come to trust and like to use most is the burris fullfield 11 in 2-7x35 #4 reticle ,i have them on my Tikka t3 lite in338WM another on my rem7600 35whelen another on a bsa 338 fed and another on a 303 epps,,My eldest son has another on his rem 375HH mag and 35 whelen pump ,i also have another stashed away spare.the scopes on the 375 and 338wm have been going at least 6 years and get used on a weekly basis so they can handle recoil and hard work .If you can find 1 grab it you wont be sorry.just wish they did the3-9x40 with the #4

I looked over my records and, honestly... I've only batted 50% on Burris scopes over the last decade. Several had issues...

I have two 2-7x35 FF II's with ballistic plex reticles, they are great scopes. On my two they have enough eye relief for me to use on my 35 Whelen, I don't even think about getting hit by the scope. While on the subject of Burris scopes, I have 3-9x40 FF II on another 35 Whelen with no issues and plenty of eye relief.

I'd not do it for a 9.3x62, eye relief is lacking.

Can't beat the Leupolds for eye relief

I have one on my 358 Norma: haven't killed it yet, but only 68 rounds so far. Eye relief is ok. Clarity is fine. Like the ballistic plex. Biggest complaint is very, very limited range of adjustment, and 1/2" clicks.

That, and it doesn't seem to attract elk like it should.... JMO, Dutch.

I've got a Burris Signature Safari #4P on my 9.3X62, no complaints. The other scope that I really like is the Kahles 2X7 but they are hard to find and expensive. Have several FFII's and no complaints with them either. The eye box and relief is a bit low, but they have held up.

I have one on a 500 S&W Handi-rifle, and like it a lot. It has handled the recoil with no problems. I also have the #4 reticle.

Lots of shooters blame the scope eye on short eye relief but it's usually just shooter crawling the stock to see. But, that's still a REAL problem if you do that. I have never had a problem with 3.5 on my guns.

Lots of shooters blame the scope eye on short eye relief but it's usually just shooter crawling the stock to see. But, that's still a REAL problem if you do that. I have never had a problem with 3.5 on my guns.

Have a 2x7 on my son's 30-30 and it is great. I am a fan of Burris Fullfield II's and have a 3x9 on my CZ 6.5x55. I am fixing to put the 3x9 on a Vanguard 30-06 because I just ordered a Viper 3x9 from Camera Land.

I put one on my Mossberg MVP Flex in .308 win and it has had issues. It keeps losing focus, it takes several clicks before it will begin to move left to right, it floats left to right and today, with less than 100 rounds under it the reticle turned about 45 deg. My first Burris and not happy. Hell, I bet a Tasco would have lasted longer lol Now I get to see how the Burris customer support is.

I wanted to like it. Worked well at low magnification (2-3x). My eyes found it sharper than my son's Leupy 2-7 VX2.

Regrettably, there was not enough eye relief when I turned it up. No such problems with the 3-9x40.

Lots of 'shooters' never fire a rifle in any position but sitting on their asses.

If the scope has enough eye relief, and it's mounted properly, then why is the shooter crawling the stock to see?

As you and ingwe both have said (and I agree). I bought two of them on sale - sold one and the other is on a rimfire. Between the eye relief and the short tube, I had a hard time finding a rifle I could make it work on. I did put it on a Kimber 325 WSM for a couple of shots - when just close enough for a full view it was on the verge of scoping me. I would get light contact each time I fired, so it quickly came off.

I ain't prone to lie. I doubt Tom is either.

I have one on an ar 15. I only paid like 115 for it, I like the reticle but find the view not all that clear. For some reason on that model of scope the glass isn't that great. nutnfancy on youtube reported the same thing about that model of scope. the 3x9 ff2 however I think have great glass for the money. instead I would go with an elite in 3x9, the amount of FOV you give up is almost unnoticable plus more power on the top end and a scope that is easy to get behind at least for me.

If you think a Burris has short eye relief, Bushnell 3200/4200/Elites have way less...I've not mounted one that had the advertised eye relief, and going prone behind anything but a 22, was asking for it. I haven't played with the 2-7 FFII, but the 3-9 works well on a 6# .308.

Well, I'm hoping I like my 2-7x35 as much as I do my 3-9x40's. The 3-9x40 with ballistic plex have been nothing but stellar. One in particular has been on 7 rifles. I've had to send 1 Burris FFII in for repair and that is one of the American made ones that has seen the most use. The eye relief is fine, even for a 9.3x62mm. My 2-7x35 seems to be fine as well, but time will only tell.

something is wrong then in the way your holding the gun. never had a problem even in the slightest bit. long eye relief isn't the panacea many think, otherwise everyone would use scout scopes. It makes eye placement more critical and decreases FOV.

I can assure you that nothing is wrong with the way I hold a gun. I think something is wrong with assuming things about others. I've measured the actual eye relief on several scopes, of different makes and models. When a maker advertises 3-3.5" of eye relief, but actual eye to lense measurements of multiple shooters run from 2.5"-1.4", over 3x-9x, then there's a problem. IF you can get a true 3"-3.5" of eye relief, then it is all that's needed. Heck, anything 2.25-2.5" and more, will work. I think my older Elcans run at 2.5". Now, it is always a possibility that I happened to utilize some anomalous 3200/4200/Elite series tubes vs what is typical for them, with regards to eye relief. I could buy that as a point if disagreement/discussion/debate. Presuming factors unknown is a non-starter.